My thoughts so far this game on Calamitas as they developed:
<b>Jospeh </b>
Either silverspawn has some information we don't and Jospeh is actuallt scum or he is basically dead (D2 lynch). Case 1 doesn't allow us testing by killing silver, we could just take an important power role of the game. If he turns out lying we should stop handling him with kid gloves and just kill him.
I found the content of this post to be a scummy entrance. The language is very strong for an entrance post commenting on RVS and I continue to feel that the tone is off. It reads to me like someone trying to make up guesses on things where he already knows the answers.
When I read the statement, three people had already voted for Calamitas, two of them for the bolding mistake. If I had voted him at this point, it would have put him at L-1. That seemed like a dangerous place to put anyone so early in the game, so I refrained from voting or from even commenting on the scummy nature of the post at the time.
Vote: Jospeh
He fixes the bolding mistake, but still has a typo. Whoever this person is, he's not being very careful and is rushing out these posts. Slight town overall, as town tends to be more careful than scum, but more meta would be helpful here.
Current reads
Town
mail-mi
Slight Town
RR
Slight Scum
Calamitas
vote: Calamitas
How would you classify Jospehs mafia claiming? Could be a repetition of his bluff he did before and therefore be towny or an actual commitment since he might have assumed we would believe in Case 1. Levels and Levels...
I already commented on how I found this post scummy. silverspawn votes for him, and he responds by asking silverspawn what he thinks of Joseph and ignoring the vote on him. It felt off. This post, plus the fact that people were moving their votes off of Calamitas for the bolding mistake issue, made me feel comfortable enough placing my vote on him. My thinking: no risk of an undue early end of day from a derphammer, so may as well put my vote on the scummiest player.
That people found it strange for me to vote for a player I had just defended is understandable. My explanation is that I was not defending Calamitas. I was only pointing out that his bolding mistake was not a good reason to vote for him.
Imo, RR just telling his thoughts whereas leadership is another thing. So, i wanted to say, that it's ok for me to listen and think, but not okay to follow smbd. As yet
What do you think of Seprix? Scummy as mail-mi says?
IMO maybe slightly
He made the "Angular brackets - quicktopic - Mafia kill/PR" connection even though there hasn't been kills/PRs in N0 and even though quicktopic isn't by far the likeliest place one would come in touch with angular brackets. But I am not sure if this makes him town or scum, scum might be more careful in such situations (or that is WIFOM).
Additionally, he was against claiming role names and argued it would give scum information even though it is irrelevant and could be an attempt to appear innocent. But again, wouldn't scum be more careful since it wasn't subtle at all.
So, concluding I would say that he appears slightly scummy but definitely not enough to do anything on that front.
Scummy post. Hedging and calling a player scummy but not enough to vote for is a scummy stance to take.
I've already stated my reasons.
Vote: Calamitas
Agree with silver. Town on LaLight.
Current reads
Town
mail-mi
Slight Town
RR
Slight Scum
Calamitas
vote: Calamitas
How would you classify Jospehs mafia claiming? Could be a repetition of his bluff he did before and therefore be towny or an actual commitment since he might have assumed we would believe in Case 1. Levels and Levels...
This comments feels scummy. Joseph has claimed scum over 3 or 4 times in a row now. It's just how he starts his games. But something feels off about how Calamitas is drawing attention to it here. It's like he's (rather overtly) trying to draw attention away from himself and onto someone else that he feels might be easy to lynch. The tone also feels a bit forced.
By scanning through iguanas post I noticed that the only reason he "stated" was based on a quote that appeared later than his vote. Therefore the stated reason cannot by the real reason for his vote what is really suspicious.
vote: iguana
Not sure if this is a deliberate misunderstanding or just Calamitas being wrong, but he's misrepresenting me here. I'd already given a reason at the time that I made the post "I've already stated my reasons." That post is #168. My first reasoning for voting Calamitas is stated at #158.
I don't actually know if I find this scummy. I probably would have 5 games ago, but I don't know if scum actually deliberately misunderstands someone to make a case against them at this point in the game. I think this might just be sloppy play.
So overall, I'm still just leaning slight scum on Calamitas and pretty null on most other players.